“I want to look in the eyes of our children and promise them that they will be safe.”

A new article from the April 2009 edition of the National Rifle Association’s flagship magazine, America’s First Freedom, demonstrates the gun lobby group’s unerring capacity to smear anyone who stands in their way, no matter how sensible and well-intentioned their views. The piece, entitled “Arne Duncan: Education at the Extremez,” is a scathing attack on the new Secretary of Education, whom author David Kopel describes as “the most extreme anti-gun member of President Barack Obama’s Cabinet.”

What did Arne Duncan do to make the NRA so steamed? For starters, he was selected to receive a 2008 “Abraham Lincoln Award” from the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence (ICHV), a group that “advocates for policies designed to minimize the impact gun violence has on Illinois residents.” The award honors “individuals who have shown great political and personal courage in the fight to reduce gun violence …. [The award is] named for an Illinoisan who had the courage and conviction to work for change in our society. Abraham Lincoln was one of our greatest presidents, but tragically was a victim of gun violence.” Past ICHV Lincoln Award honorees have included mayors, members of the Illinois legislature, members of the U.S. Congress, and a U.S. President.

ICHV was recognizing Duncan, then the Superintendent of Chicago Public Schools, as “a longstanding proponent of reducing gun violence,” and as a public servant who “work[ed] within the Chicago school system to help make schools and communities safer for students and their families.”

Duncan’s second sin, in the NRA’s eyes, was to state that it is an “undeniable fact that guns and kids don’t mix” at the ICHV Awards Ceremony that year. One would think that is simple common sense, but the NRA quickly portrayed the statement as “an attack on the Scholastic Clays Target Program, gun clubs with small-bore shooting teams for teenagers, and parents who take their children hunting.”

Duncan likely had a different type of hunting on his mind—during the 2007-08 school year, a record 34 Chicago Public School students were killed, the overwhelming majority with firearms. It was for this reason that Duncan refused to accept ICAHV’s Lincoln Award that evening, saying:

"I wish we could stand here today and declare victory over gun violence ... I want to look in the eyes of our children and promise them that they will be safe—and that their only concern is whether they did their homework, not whether they can walk to school. I wish we could preserve their innocence long enough to foster a love of learning instead of a fear of death. I wish that our society valued children more than it values violent rituals and traditions that might have been at home in a frontier society two centuries ago but make absolutely no sense today. I wish for all of these things—but none of them are yet true ... And so, while I am deeply honored to be here...I cannot accept your award. I don’t feel I have earned it. I don’t feel any of us have earned it. Instead I would ask us all to remember the horror and tragedy of children who live with death every day. I would ask us all to renew our commitment to reducing gun violence.”

While Duncan spoke that night about youth who had recently been killed in Chicago, the problem is certainly not limited to the state of Illinois. The NRA is apparently unaware of—or simply doesn’t care about—a series of gruesome shootings involving children that have occurred in the five months since Duncan attended the ICHV awards ceremony, including the following incidents:

“11-Year-Old Boy Kills Future Stepmother, Brother”
“Ohio Teen Convicted of Killing Mom Over Video Game”
“Angry Ohio Boy, 4, Shoots Baby Sitter”
“Brother Shot Girl in the Chest”
“12-year-old Arizona Boy Guilty in Mom’s Shooting”
“Boy, 8, Shot to Death in Massachusetts Gun Show Accident”
“Boy, 8, Admits Shooting Dad, Neighbor in Video”
“Father's Gunshot Kills Boy, 12”
“10 Year Old Killed, Brother and Father Charged”
“Real Gun Mistaken for a Toy; Girl Shoots Brother”

In the America’s First Freedom article, author Kopel also expresses outrage that Duncan spoke at a protest outside Chuck’s Gun Shop in Riverdale, Illinois, on May 26, 2007. For those not familiar with Chuck’s Gun Shop, it is the leading supplier of firearms to criminals among all federally licensed gun dealers in America. From 1996-2000, 2,370 guns were traced from crime scenes to the store (to put that in perspective, only five other dealers in the entire country had more than 1,000 guns traced to crime during this period). Chuck’s sits in a suburb directly outside Chicago. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has confirmed that most of Chicago’s crime guns come from dealers in-state (“We are our own worst enemies as a dealer state,” said ATF agent Thomas Ahern of the Chicago Field Division). Criminals go outside Chicago to make purchases because the city’s gun laws have made it virtually impossible for them to get firearms there.

Interestingly, Kopel spends almost half the article commenting on an inappropriate and ill-advised remark that Chicago Pastor Michael Pfleger made at the protest, in a weak attempt to guilt Duncan by association. He curiously fails to identify others who spoke that day, like Annette Holt, the mother of a 16-year-old who was shot and killed on a Chicago Transit Authority bus days before the event as he heroically tried to save another patron. Perhaps a grieving mother like Holt, whose organization Purpose Over Pain supports a wide range of state and federal gun control measures, simply isn’t as convenient a target.

And the NRA might have another motive in defending Chuck’s Gun Shop. In 2006, the store won the NRA’s Dealer Recruiter of the Year Award for getting the most patrons to join the organization.

Americans like Arne Duncan who care deeply about the disproportionate toll that gun violence is taking on children in this country and want to do something about it? The only place they’re “extreme” is in the eyes of the National Rifle Association.

Sensible Second Thoughts

Last week, Bullet Counter Points commented on a controversial amendment to the Senate version of the D.C. voting rights bill (“A Dangerous Gambit”). Now, the legislation has been put on temporary hold as D.C. officials contemplate the price they are willing to pay for a vote in the House of Representatives.

On February 26, the Senate approved a version of the “D.C. House Voting Rights Act” with an amendment drafted by the National Rifle Association (NRA). The Ensign Amendment, sponsored by Senator John Ensign (R-NV), would repeal the District of Columbia’s new gun laws entirely and prohibit the D.C. Council from enacting any law in the future that would “unduly burden the ability of persons” to obtain and possess firearms. None of these changes to District’s gun laws were called for in the recent District of Columbia v. Heller ruling by the Supreme Court. Commenting on the Senate’s passage of the amendment, Dennis Hennigan, Legal Director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said, “It was a craven political decision to put at risk…this community in order to curry favor with the gun lobby. That’s all that was.”

After the Senate vote, there was a tremendous outcry in the District over the Ensign Amendment. One D.C. resident who published a letter in the Washington Post summed up the fears of many of her fellow Washingtonians: “If this amendment becomes law, it would make me frightened to work and live in a city that has been my home for thirteen years.” Meanwhile, there was a great deal of uncertainty as to how the Democratic Leadership in the House would produce a clean version of the bill free of any gun amendments.

Concerned that there was no clear strategy to overcome the gun lobby’s anti-democratic campaign, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence sprang into action. We alerted D.C. residents to the danger posed to public safety by the Ensign Amendment and urged them to contact D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton. On March 3, we conducted a press conference along with the D.C. Council and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence on the steps of the District Government Building. At the event, D.C. Council Chairman Vincent Gray announced a unanimously-approved council resolution that reads: "The United States Congress must not adopt any amendment to the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act that restricts the District Government’s ability to legislate the regulation of firearms." The Chairman of the Council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, Phil Mendelson, spoke and said, “To deny us a vote on an issue as fundamental as guns is wrong and it is reckless. It is reckless because not only would we not be able to respond to incidents of gun violence or suggestions on how to deal with gun violence, but what the Senate has done would significantly—significantly—weaken the laws regarding guns in the District.” Council Member Mary Cheh questioned whether D.C. officials should continue to support the voting rights bill if it meant the city would have to loosen its firearms regulations, saying, "To make us swallow this without objection…we're just lying down, just like always. What have we won?"

Within an hour of the press conference’s conclusion, the “D.C. House Voting Rights Act” was pulled from consideration in the House. House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD) explained that he did not have enough votes to bring the bill to the floor without the possibility of amendments. The rumor had spread on Capitol Hill that the NRA would be grading procedural votes on the legislation and House Democrats from conservative and rural districts took notice. Delegate Norton accused them of “reacting in a knee-jerk fashion to the NRA,” and stated that they were “doing something to kill a basic civil rights bill.”

D.C. voting rights advocates are now scrambling to lobby a group of 60+ “Blue Dog” Democrats in the House to “size up who [is] genuinely at risk” of repercussions from the NRA and to find out why these Representatives object to the District’s current gun laws. House Democratic Leaders believe they can pass a clean bill in that chamber if they secure 28 more votes in favor of blocking all amendments.

“This is hard, man,” said Delegate Norton, commenting on the lobbying effort. Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Executive Director Josh Horwitz put it a different way: "There are no easy answers here ... I don't think it's...done in the House yet, but it will take a lot of creative thinking." Even if a voting rights bill does clear the House free of gun amendments, a final version of the legislation would have to be approved in a House-Senate Conference, and there is no guarantee the Ensign Amendment would be stripped out during such negotiations.

There’s no doubt that legislation to grant voting representation to the District is long overdue. Washingtonians should not be forced to choose democracy over their own safety, however. As D.C. Council Chairman Gray recently noted, the Ensign Amendment is “extremely offensive” to the very principle upon which the “D.C. House Voting Rights Act” rests: self-determination. Hopefully, Democrats at both the federal and local level will take Gray’s assertion to heart in the crucial days ahead.

A Dangerous Gambit

District of Columbia residents have been rightfully excited this year about the prospects of finally gaining voting representation in the U.S. Congress. After the “D.C. House Voting Rights Act” passed the House in 2007 and came tantalizing close in the Senate, the stage seemed set for victory with the election of President Barack Obama, who has stated openly he will sign the legislation if it comes to his desk. Bipartisan and vote-neutral, the Act pairs a seat for the traditionally Democratic District with an additional seat for Republican-leaning Utah (the next state eligible for a seat based on U.S. Census numbers).

What should have been a day of celebration last Thursday turned into a nightmare for the District, however, when the Senate approved its version of the “D.C. House Voting Rights Act” S. 160, with an amendment drafted by the National Rifle Association (NRA).

The Ensign Amendment, sponsored by Senator John Ensign (R-NV), would gut the District of Columbia’s new gun laws entirely. D.C.’s firearm registration system would be eliminated, assault weapons and high-capacity magazines would be legalized, federal anti-trafficking laws would be rolled back so that District residents could buy guns across state lines in MD and VA (without any oversight by D.C. authorities), and the D.C. Council would be prohibited from enacting any law in the future that might “unduly burden the ability of persons” to obtain and possess firearms. None of these changes to D.C.’s gun laws were called for in the recent District of Columbia v. Heller ruling by the Supreme Court.

Speaking of the amendment, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said, "It's reckless; it's irresponsible; it will lead to more violence." The D.C. Council was equally blunt in its assessment. "The Senate action is of huge concern," said Phil Mendelson, Chairman of the council's Public Safety and Judiciary Committee. "It strips our authority. The irony here is that on one hand they vote to give us voting representation, but on the other hand they strip any local representation in regards to our gun laws."

The amendment passed the Senate on a vote of 62-36 with the support of 22 Democrats. Asked to explain the vote count, Senator Ensign (who appears to be the NRA’s new point man in the Senate with the retirement of Idaho Senator Larry Craig) said, “People are afraid.” Norman J. Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, concurred with this assessment, noting, "people don't want to vote against the National Rifle Association."

Democrats who voted for the Ensign Amendment noted that they were not pressured by their leadership in the Senate to vote NO (Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid himself was a YES vote). It also appears that D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, through their deafening silence on Thursday, signaled to Democrats that they could vote as they wished on the amendment as long as voted YES on S. 160. Delegate Norton failed to even mention the passage of the Ensign Amendment in her press release after the Senate votes, referring only obliquely to “tough anti-home rule battles.” This was in direct contrast to the action of D.C. Council members, who sent a sharply-worded letter to Senators on Thursday describing the amendment as a poison pill.

It would seem that Mayor Fenty and Delegate Norton are banking on the “D.C. House Voting Rights Act” gaining approval from the House of Representatives this week without any gun amendments attached. But even though House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) has branded the Ensign Amendment "inappropriate and wrong," saying, "I hope it won't be in the final product," that outcome is far from certain. In fact, just this past September, 266 House Members voted to pass H.R. 6842, a bill that was nearly identical to the Ensign Amendment.

And even if the "D.C. House Voting Rights Act" is approved by the House without a gun amendment attached, it still has to go to a House-Senate Conference. The conference could elect to include, or not include, the Ensign Amendment. As one unnamed aide on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee noted, "There's a lot of behind-the-scenes things that could happen."

Finally, it should be stated that the “D.C. House Voting Rights Act” is certain to draw a constitutional challenge in the courts. What would happen if the bill was signed into law with the Ensign Amendment language attached only to have its congressional representation provisions struck down shortly thereafter? At that point, D.C. residents would see their democratic aspirations vanish along with their gun laws.

A single voting representative in the House is not worth the price of increased gun violence in the District. D.C. residents have a basic right to self-determination, and that is what the "D.C. House Voting Rights Act" is supposed to stand for. Should the bill, burdened with the Ensign Amendment, come up for final passage in the House, Mayor Fenty, Delegate Norton and the Democratic leadership must end their risky venture and kill the bill.

Deranged Shooters, Legal Handguns

A horrific tragedy occurred last month when a 24 year-old man opened fire with a handgun outside a popular under-21 nightclub in Portland, Oregon. On January 24, Erik S. Ayala drove downtown to The Zone, got out of his car, and began shooting into the crowd gathered outside. He fired 8-10 times before fatally shooting himself. Ayala had taken a tranquilizer prior to the shooting, but otherwise had no alcohol or drugs in his system.

The shooting took the lives of two bright young women: Marta “Tika” Paz de Noboa, 17, a Peruvian exchange student, and Ashley Wilks, a 16-year old high school sophomore. Seven other individuals were injured, including the manager of a nearby restaurant and other foreign exchange students.

Like the shooters in the tragedies at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, Erik Ayala had an established and well-known history of mental illness and violent tendencies. In high school, Ayala was identified as a “student of concern.” School officials received an anonymous tip in September 2000 that Ayala had made threats against others and talked about bringing a gun to school. In December of that year, he was hospitalized for attempting suicide by overdosing on over-the-counter pills.

As a result, Ayala was diagnosed with “numerous mental disorders,” including schizophrenia, and received intensive counseling from a team composed of school officials, psychologists, police, county mental health experts, and Oregon Youth Authority officials (which was formed in response to the 1998 Thurston High School shooting in Springfield, Oregon). This treatment was administered during a month-long stay at a Portland mental health facility and continued when Ayala returned to school.

Once Ayala graduated high school in 2002, his treatment ended (in part because he was unable to obtain health care insurance). He worked as a data entry operator for the Oregon Department of Health and Human Services until July 2007, and then part-timed with a temp agency. At the time of the shootings, police say that Ayala was unemployed and battling depression.

Ayala purchased the weapon used in the shooting, an Italian-manufactured EAA Witness 9mm pistol, for about $350 from 99 Pawn & Guns in Milwaukie, Oregon. He visited the pawn shop on January 6 to browse and returned the next day to purchase the handgun, but was told he did not have appropriate identification. Two days later, he returned with an alien resident card and proof of three months residency in the United States in the form of utility bills. Ayala then passed the required instant background check and left the store with his gun later that day.

Despite his history of mental illness and threatening behavior, Ayala appears never to have been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution or declared “mentally defective” by a court of law. He was therefore not prohibited under federal law from purchasing firearms.

That’s not to say that Ayala’s handgun purchase couldn’t have been prevented, however. States such as New York and New Jersey require would-be purchasers to obtain a license/permit before they are allowed to buy handguns. The permitting process involves an actual background investigation where law enforcement officials interview significant figures in the applicant’s life (such as a spouse or relatives) about issues ranging from substance abuse to the applicant’s mental health. Under this process, Ayala would certainly have been denied a permit once authorities spoke with members of his family or local officials.

Commenting on the Portland shooting, Dr. Joseph D. Bloom, professor emeritus at the Oregon Health & Science University Department of Psychiatry, said, "It's all becoming very familiar. A person with recent losses and some history of past difficulties who is depressed and becomes suicidal, and then deliberately purchases a gun with a clear plan in mind to end his life and take out his anger on society by a random shooting event and ends it by taking his own life."

Such tragedies don’t have to be familiar, however, and won’t be for long if our elected officials take the necessary steps to assure that gun purchasers are not a threat to themselves or others.

“We believe in absolutely gun-free, zero tolerance, totally safe schools”

In the wake of recent shooting tragedies at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, there has been a push by the gun lobby to allow concealed carry permit holders to bring handguns onto college campuses. To date, lawmakers in 17 states have considered bills that would prohibit university officials from regulating the possession of firearms on school property. Fortunately, all of these measures have gone down in defeat due to the strong opposition of students, university administrators, and campus law enforcement officials.

During the past six months, two respected organizations, the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA) and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), have released well-researched policy briefs that argue clearly and convincingly against allowing concealed handguns on college campuses.

IACLEA was founded in1958 and is affiliated with the National Association of School Safety and Law Enforcement Officers (NASSLEO) and campus law enforcement organizations in 29 states. In their position paper, “Concealed Carrying of Firearms Proposals on College Campuses,” IACLEA’s Board of Directors states unequivocally that such initiatives will not make campuses safer, pointing out that, “There is no credible statistical evidence demonstrating that laws allowing the carrying of concealed firearms reduce crime. In fact, the evidence suggests that permissive concealed carry laws generally will increase crime.”

The paper also states that, “IACLEA is concerned that concealed carry laws have the potential to dramatically increase violence on college and university campuses that our Members are empowered to protect. Among the concerns with concealed carry laws or policies are: the potential for accidental discharge or misuse of firearms at on-campus or off-campus parties where large numbers of students are gathered or at student gatherings where alcohol or drugs are being consumed, as well as the potential for guns to be used as a means to settle disputes between or among students. There is also a real concern that campus police officers responding to a situation involving an active shooter may not be able to distinguish between the shooter and others with firearms.”

The American Association of State Colleges and Universities—a group devoted to helping to advance public education, economic development and the quality of life at our nation’s universities—has issued a policy brief entitled “Concealed Weapons on State College Campuses: In Pursuit of Individual Liberty and Collective Security.” The brief states that “the vast majority of college administrators, law enforcement personnel and students maintain that allowing concealed weapons on campus will pose increased risks for students and faculty, will not deter future attacks, and will lead to confusion during emergency situations.”

The brief further notes that, “While police are extensively trained to deal with crises, students or university staff with concealed weapons are not trained or integrated into campus security plans. Even with the best of intentions, armed students or employees could escalate an already explosive situation further, accidentally cause harm or use a gun in a situation that is not warranted.”

Once upon a time, even the National Rifle Association recognized the wisdom in keeping schools gun-free. In the aftermath of the Columbine High School shootings, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre addressed the issue in a speech at the 1999 NRA National Convention, stating: “First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period, with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel. We believe America's schools should be as safe as America's airports. You can't talk about, much less take, bombs and guns onto airplanes. Such behavior in our schools should be prosecuted just as certainly as such behavior in our airports is prosecuted.”

Great irony can also be found in recent comments by Ken Stanton, the Virginia Tech Campus Leader for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC). SCCC believes “there is no pragmatic basis for declaring college campuses off-limits to concealed carry.”

Speaking about Haiyang Zhu, who tragically murdered a fellow Hokie on campus last month, Stanton said, “He wasn’t like [Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho] at all. He’s a very social, outgoing guy. He was just a normal outgoing kind of person like the rest of us. We couldn’t have seen this coming.” Stanton did not make it clear why the behavior of students with concealed carry permits—which now can be obtained through a one-hour online “training” course in Virginia—would be any more predictable.

New York's New Senator

Controversy erupted last week when New York Governor David A. Paterson announced U.S. Representative Kirsten Gillibrand as his appointee to fill the Senate seat vacated by now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Senator Gillibrand, an upstate Democrat from New York’s 20^th District, has drawn strong criticism from politicians and advocacy groups in her home state regarding her positions on gun issues. While in the House of Representatives, Senator Gillibrand continually supported legislation to weaken gun regulations and received an ‘A’ grade and 100% rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA). Jackie Hilly, Executive Director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, stated that, “It is clear that the public at both the national and state level want reasonable regulations of guns and Kirsten Gillibrand stands outside that mainstream.”

Gillibrand has stated that she is “very pro-Second Amendment” and supports the rights of hunters and sportsmen, but also believes that “gun safety, keeping guns out of the hands of children [and] making sure our guns are the safest in the world” should be goals of lawmakers of both sides of the aisle. Her voting record, however, suggests that she has shown little inclination towards compromise.

Last year, Gillibrand co-sponsored H.R. 4900, the “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act,” in the House. This NRA-drafted legislation would have made the “Tiahrt Amendment” restrictions on crime gun trace data permanent, allowed law-breaking gun dealers to claim ignorance of the law as a full defense, blocked ATF from modernizing and updating its recordkeeping procedures, and codified the “Fire Sale Loophole” which allows crooked dealers to sell off their inventory without conducting background checks after their federal licenses have been revoked. H.R. 4900 would have effectively gutted law enforcement’s ability to curb the illegal trafficking of firearms across state lines, which occurs on a daily basis in the United States. As a New York representative, you would think Gillibrand would have been familiar with the scope of the problem—in 2007, 70% of New York’s crime guns were trafficked in illegally from outside states.

In 2008, Gillibrand also co-sponsored H.R. 6691, the “Second Amendment Enforcement Act.” This NRA-drafted bill would have repealed the District of Columbia’s registration requirement for handguns, legalized semiautomatic assault weapons, allowed individuals who have been voluntarily committed to psychiatric institutions within the last five years to own firearms, and prohibited the D.C. Council from enacting any gun-related legislation in the future. Most disturbingly, H.R. 6691 would have allowed individuals to openly carry loaded rifles and assault weapons on D.C.’s streets. Gillibrand has frequently stated that “hunting rights” are very important to her. After two years of living in the District of Columbia, you would think she would be aware that the only thing hunted in the city is human beings.

Due to Gillibrand’s strong pro-NRA stance, New York Representative Carolyn McCarthy has promised to challenge the new Senator in the 2010 Democratic Senate Primary. Rep. McCarthy has long advocated for stronger gun laws, having lost her husband in the 1993 Long Island Rail Road shooting massacre. To her credit, Senator Gillibrand has been gracious to her colleague, and even offered to work on Rep. McCarthy’s “signature bill,” the “NICS Improvement Act.” This bill was initially drafted to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to prevent individuals disqualified under federal law from purchasing firearms. However, the NRA was allowed to rewrite the bill during the 11^th hour to include provisions that would restore gun-purchasing rights to veterans who have been deemed mentally incompetent by the VA. Time will tell if this was a serious offer by Senator Gillibrand to work to improve our background check system (which lacks millions of mental health records that would disqualify purchasers), or yet another attempt to appease the gun lobby.

Senator Gillibrand replaces a legislator with a strong history of support for gun control measures. Hillary Clinton made repeated efforts during her days as First Lady and Senator to reduce gun violence. While running for president, Senator Clinton advocated reinstating the federal Assault Weapons Ban, repealing the Tiahrt Amendment and closing the Gun Show Loophole that allows individuals to buy guns from private sellers without a background check. Senator Gillibrand’s views on gun control appear to stand diametrically opposed to those of her predecessor.

Despite her past record, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is eager to work with Senator Gillibrand and educate her about the problem of gun violence in New York and the country as a whole. Like Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), we hope that Senator Gillibrand’s views will “evolve” and that she will represent all of her constituents—statewide—during her time on Capitol Hill.

Advocates Determined to Close Gun Show Loophole in Commonwealth

On January 13, staff from the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence was honored to join victims and survivors from the tragic shootings at Virginia Tech; concerned students from Longwood University; and representatives from Protest Easy Guns, the Virginia Chapters of the Million Mom March, the Virginia Center for Public Safety, and Students for Gun Free Schools as they attended a hearing of the Virginia State Crime Commission in Richmond.

The Crime Commission was scheduled to make a recommendation to the Virginia General Assembly on the Gun Show Loophole issue. The loophole allows individuals to sell firearms at gun shows without conducting criminal background checks on purchasers. The ATF has identified gun shows as the second leading source of illegally trafficked firearms in the United States, stating that “prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons … Firearms [are] diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers.” An ATF investigation in Virginia found that between 2002 and 2005 more than 400 firearms sold at Richmond-area gun shows were recovered in connection with criminal activity.

The Virginia Tech Review Panel, the Virginia State Police, and an overwhelming majority of Commonwealth residents have called for the loophole to be closed. Omar Samaha, brother of Virginia Tech victim Reema Samaha, also made it clear to the Crime Commission how easy it was for him to buy handguns and assault weapons at a recent Virginia gun show from private sellers—no questions asked. “It’s like going to the store to buy a jug of milk or a candy bar,” Samaha said. “I had 10 guns in under an hour.”

Unfortunately, the Crime Commission failed to heed these recommendations, and deadlocked 6-6 on a vote to recommend that the Gun Shop Loophole be closed. The key vote was cast by House Minority Leader Delegate Ward L. Armstrong (D-Henry), who had joined the commission only days earlier. He claimed his NO vote was because of the high unemployment rate in his district, and the importance of the annual Carroll County Gun Show. This logic was not immediately clear—background checks are inexpensive and gun shows continue to thrive in states that have closed the Gun Show Loophole, such as California. Armstrong also complained about not being well briefed on the issue, but decided to vote NO anyway even after Commission Chairman David B. Albo (R-Fairfax) recommended he abstain.

Gun violence prevention advocates were undeterred, and gathered by the Bell Tower on the State Capitol grounds immediately after the Commission hearing to conduct a Lie-In in remembrance of past victims of gun violence. Courtney Edwards, a Longwood student who lost her best friend, Nicole White, during the Virginia Tech tragedy, spoke and said, “I can't believe that they are even questioning this. I don't even understand what the question is about it." Nicole’s father, Mike White, was more blunt: “Indecision is what caused the murder of my child,” he said. “Indecision today is what will cause convicted felons, [the] mentally ill and others to walk into the next gun show and purchase a weapon in order to wreak more harm.”

The issue will now move to the Virginia General Assembly, where Senator Henry Marsh (D-Richmond) and Senator Janet Howell (D-Reston) have already introduced legislation, SB 1257, to close the Gun Show Loophole.

Advocates are committed to passing the legislation and ready for a tough fight. “I don’t care if it takes a decade,” said Lily Habtu, who was shot multiple times at Virginia Tech but survived. “No one should have to go through what I went through.” Omar Samaha agrees. “We are going to keep going until this law is changed,” he said.

Microstamping Proves its Worth...Again

For years, law enforcement has been stymied by an inability to draw significant leads from ballistic evidence recovered at crime scenes. When a crime gun is not physically recovered at a crime scene, investigators receive return hits from bullet and cartridge evidence entered into the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network only 1.5% of the time. In many cases, these “hits” are only matches to cartridges found at other crimes scenes—letting investigators know that the firearm has been used in another crime without actually identifying the weapon. The national “clearance” rate for homicide cases in 2005 was only 62%.

Thankfully, “microstamping” technology has been developed to address this problem. Microstamping utilizes lasers to make precise, microscopic engravings on the internal mechanisms of a handgun, such as the breech face and firing pin. As the gun is fired, information identifying the make, model and serial number of the gun is stamped onto the cartridge as alphanumeric and geometric codes. The technology allows law enforcement to trace firearms directly through cartridge casings found at crime scenes, without any need to recover the crime gun itself.

Seeking to avoid reform at all costs, the gun lobby has repeatedly attacked microstamping technology as unproven and unreliable. A recent test of the technology, however, has once again discredited that claim.

Microstamping’s co-inventors, Todd Lizotte and Orest Ohar, presented a research paper at the SPIE Optics & Technology Conference in San Diego in August 2008 covering the testing of a .45 Cal Colt 1991 A1 Commander semiautomatic pistol. This represented the first peer-reviewed publication of fully optimized and current state-of-the-art microstamping technology as applied to firearms.

During the stress test, Lizotte and Ohar fired 1,500 rounds from the Colt handgun. This firearm was purchased as a used model and equipped with microstamping technology. Using simple Optical Microscopy, Lizotte and Ohar achieved identifiable marks from the Colt’s expended cartridges over 95% of the time. The rounds were fired consecutively and each cartridge was collected and meticulously catalogued, allowing future researchers to review the evidence for themselves.

This followed a previous test in May 2007 that demonstrated the endurance and durability of the technology. During that test, Lizotte and Ohar fired over 2,500 rounds from a microstamped Smith and Wesson .40 caliber semiautomatic handgun using five different brands of ammunition. Microstamped markings from the firing pin were transferred successfully 97% of the time using both Optical Microscopy and Scanning Electron Microscopy. Additionally, breech face markings transferred to cartridge casings 96% of the time.

These tests demonstrate the viability of microstamping under even the most extreme conditions, but very rarely are handguns fired thousands of times before being used in crimes. A 2000 ATF study found that semiautomatic handguns have the shortest median “time-to-crime” of any firearm type, 4.5 years. This marks the length of time from a firearm’s first retail sale to its recovery by law enforcement as a crime gun. Furthermore, Joe Vince, a former Chief of ATF’s Crime Gun Analysis Branch, has noted that crime guns are frequently recovered with fewer than 20 rounds fired.

In October 2007, California became the first state to enact a microstamping law for semiautomatic handguns. Several other states, and the District of Columbia, are now considering microstamping legislation, and microstamping bills have been introduced at the federal level in both the House of Representatives and Senate. Lizotte and Ohar are also promoting the technology’s application for border security (more than 90% of illegal firearms seized in Mexico come from the United States) and counterinsurgency/counterterrorism in war zones.

For more information, visit the Microstamping Technology Exchange blog and read CSGV’s “Microstamping Technology: Precise and Proven” memo.

“I still see the faces of the people…that died that day…”

Here at Bullet Counter Points we like to highlight the exceptional work that everyday Ameri Today we focus on the victim of a horrible shooting tragedy that has turned his grief and trauma into a determination to help others.

On the evening of February 7, 2008, Todd Smith, a reporter for the Kirkwood-Webster Journal, was covering a city council meeting at Kirkwood City Hall in Missouri. Just after the meeting began, Charles Lee "Cookie" Thornton—a local resident who had been embroiled in a long running property dispute with the City of Kirkwood—entered the chambers and opened fire with two handguns, a .44 Magnum revolver and a .40 caliber handgun (the latter of which had been taken from a police officer Thornton killed in the parking lot outside the meeting). Before he was stopped by police, Thornton killed a total of five people (two police officers, two city council members, and Kirkwood’s public works director) and wounded two others. One of the wounded was Kirkwood Mayor Mike Swoboda, who would finally succumb to his head injuries and pass away seven months later. Also wounded was Todd, who was seated in the front row at the meeting and shot in the hand. He told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “[Thornton] was completely possessed … He looked at me directly and I felt complete rage.”

Like most of those present at the meeting that night, Todd was familiar with Thornton and his grievances. “I had seen him before at other city council meetings, and on one occasion he decided to speak at a council meeting and I decided to ask him what his issues were,” he recalls. “I had trouble understanding him and what he was wanting—he seemed angry and I had just started on Kirkwood beat and did not know his whole history. Even at this particular meeting he was somewhat incoherent and erratic and wearing a sign on his body in protest of the Kirkwood City Council.”

Sadly, this was not the first time Todd had been a victim of gun violence. He describes another traumatic incident that occurred more than a decade earlier:

“I had moved to New Castle, Delaware. A few days after July 4, 1997, I went to a nearby 7-Eleven around 9:00 p.m. I purchased a soda and was walking through a shopping center when two teenagers came up behind me with guns in their hands. They asked for money. I ran, and one of them shot at me. They ran away. I kept walking, but noticed there was blood coming from the back of my leg. I made it to a gas station that was across the street. I told the clerk to call 911. A guy getting gas noticed me sitting down in front of the gas station and took off his shirt and it was used as a tourniquet to stop my bleeding. I never saw this man again, and wish I had the chance to thank him. About 30 minutes after the shooting, an ambulance arrived on the scene and took me to a nearby hospital. A doctor came to see me and studied the wound and decided to pull the bullet out. He did numb the area, but I remember it being a painful process. I was in the hospital for three days before being released. The African-American teenagers that committed the act were never found. A police officer did come by once, I looked at pictures, but it was hard to tell who it was. I only saw them briefly, it was dark out, and their faces were partially covered.”

Todd’s recovery from these violent episodes has been difficult. The injuries he sustained in the Kirkwood shooting required two surgeries, the second of which involved a joint replacement. “I will never fully recover from this incident,” he says. “Emotionally, I have come a long way, but have a ways to go. I still have a fear of being alone at night and have fears of being in a setting with a large group of people.”

Despite the trauma he has been through, however, Todd wants to create something positive from his experience. “I feel the need to be a spokesperson on gun control,” he says. “The victims in Kirkwood were expecting to leave the meeting to go home and be with their families, like any other night. Instead, they never had a chance to say goodbye to their loved ones. I think there is something to be said about stronger gun control measures so people can go on living with the people they care about.”

Todd notes, “I am not against guns. I grew up around guns. I lived in a rural area, where people hunted and worked at a gun club. I would not like to see people’s right to have a gun taken away. I just believe in properly screening those who want to purchase guns, and developing ways to identify guns so that we know where they came from and where they were originally purchased.”

He has contacted the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and become involved in their Program for Victims and Survivors. Todd will take part in legislative advocacy efforts at the federal and state level, and reach out to other journalists to educate them about gun violence prevention.

Still, some memories do not go away easily. “I still see the faces of the people that were friends of mine that died that day in Kirkwood,” Todd says. “One did her best to help people like Thornton. She worked to make sure that the council considered the views of constituents so their concerns were always heard and represented. I also will never forget Kirkwood Police Officer Tom Ballman. He stood up when Thornton pulled out his guns and in that instant he was killed. This image will haunt me for the rest of my life.

“The instantaneous ending of a human life—which guns allow for—should not be allowed.”

A Fine Example

Tragedy was averted on December 9 when police arrested 15-year-old Richard Yanis, who planned to carry out a mass shooting at his high school in Pottstown, Pennsylvania.

Yanis was going to “shoot everyone he did not like” at Pottstown High School. He planned to tell friends to leave the school’s grounds prior to opening fire on teachers and students. Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman characterized the would-be school shooter as “an outcast, a loner who didn’t have many friends. He was picked on, he felt like he didn’t fit in very well.”

In preparation for the shooting, Yanis stole three handguns and ammunition from his father’s locker and gave them to a friend. The friend was to deliver the weapons to Yanis at the high school on the day of the shooting. However the plot began to unravel when Yanis’ father, Michael Yanis, reported the guns stolen to police, touching off an “intense, month-long investigation.” The friend holding the weapons soon dumped them in a river with the help of his stepmother and alerted school officials. Police intervened and quickly took Richard Yanis into custody. He has been charged with criminal attempt to commit first-degree murder.

The incident touches on a number of hot button issues regarding the role of guns in schools and the responsibilities of firearm owners...

Recent years have seen aggressive efforts by the gun lobby to push concealed weapons into America’s schools. Gun rights organizations have argued that arming teachers and allowing others to carry handguns into schools will enhance children’s safety. The Harrold School District in Texas made national news when it became the first K-12 campus in the country to allow teachers and faculty to carry concealed handguns. Defending the district’s decision, Superintendent David Thweatt stated, “When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, that’s when all of these shootings started. Why would you put it out there that a group of people can’t defend themselves? That’s like saying ‘Sic ‘em’ to a dog.”

Not only did Thweatt ignore the facts—a recent study showed that youth ages 5-18 are over 50 times more likely to be murdered when they are away from school than at school—he also failed to consider that a better solution might be to prevent active shooter situations before they even happen. The Pottstown case demonstrates that good investigative work by police, and vigilance by school administrators, can forestall a tragedy without the need to inject guns into a learning environment.

The Pottstown incident also highlights the importance of reporting lost and stolen firearms to the police. One can imagine what might have happened had Michael Yanis failed to make that critical call to law enforcement. As District Attorney Ferman noted, Richard Yanis “had the immediate capacity to commit the crime with the guns and arsenal of ammunition waiting to be delivered upon his word.”

One might think that reporting lost and stolen guns is a common-sense thing to do. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has reported, however, that “most gun owners do not report stolen firearms to the police.” In the state of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh Police recently reported that out of 1,900 firearms recovered on crime scenes in 2007 and 2008, only 231 had been previously reported missing or stolen.

The city of Pottstown recently passed a new ordinance that requires gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms to the police. The National Rifle Association (NRA), remarkably, opposed the ordinance, stating, “It’s not going to end up lowering crime. All it ends up doing is further victimizing someone who’s been a victim of crime.” The NRA, however, has been unable to cite a single instance where a law-abiding gun owner was wrongfully prosecuted under the law in any of the seven states where it has been enacted. At a recent Pottstown City Council hearing, one local gun owner, David Blankenhorn, had a very different view: “[My pistol] turned up in a drug raid in Auburn. Because I reported it in 24 hours, because I cooperated with the law, I was given that gun back. This ordinance can have a major benefit. If you simply follow the law, it works with you.”

Hopefully, municipal officials across the country will look to Pottstown as an example of how to prevent tragedies in their schools without putting students at additional risk of gun violence.